Talk:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt

Presentation of the ZFI, critical contents

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

An editor changes the description of the ZFI from just "association" to "research institution". Further, this editor is removing contents including sources. These removed parts, about 80% of the article text, are critical of the ZFI and say that it is right-wing and revisionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwalker (talk • contribs)

A German editor persists in flooding this article with his own opinions. I have removed unencyclopedic and POV material which is not in accordance with English Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and others. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an attack page/far-left opinion piece with 80 % negative/unencyclopedic material (partly not in English). An example of the inappropriate POV vandalism by that user: The fact that the Prime Minister of Bavaria Horst Seehofer sent a laudative greeting to the institute is portrayed as an accusation/criticism. An institute which receives laudative greetings from Horst Seehofer and cooperates with recognized scholars such as Joachim Hoffmann, Franz W. Seidler or Alfred de Zayas (one of the world's leading human rights scholars) is hardly "revisionist", except in the eyes of far-left extremists/communists. If you want to portray the Prime Minister of Bavaria as a "revisionist", get yourself your own blog. It's not acceptable here. Mrandsl (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this Association is only relevant because of its function as a right-wing revisionist think-tank, the current version is the product of POV and vandalism. --78.53.32.121 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go push your POV somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is specifically not a place for propaganda or opinion pieces. Mrandsl (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I see that there is an argument for "undue weight", the problem seems to me not the negative information included, which is well sourced, as far as I can tell, but rather the lack of sourced information on other activities of this institution. Therefore I have rearranged the content and deliberately left some white spots in the hope that somebody will fill them. For the same reason I have marked the article as a "German organization stub". I hope everybody can live with this. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article never was "well sourced". You cannot use political propaganda published exlusively by leftists or far leftists to describe a conservative organisation. These are not sources acceptable under English Wikipedia policies, these are opinions of the opponents of the institute. Specifically, using publications of opponents of the organisation to flood the article (over 80 %) with their POV is never acceptable. Wikipedia articles shall be balanced and neutral (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE). The section "Political orientation" did not contain any appropriate, neutral sources, was given undue weight, and the entire section was not written as an encyclopedia article according to English Wikipedia standards, but as an opinion piece unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The section did however point out that "the Bavarian government today no longer sees any indication for far right tendencies"; I can assure you that if the institute had been only the slightest to the right of the CSU, it would have been observed (the party Die Linke and their activities are, on the other hand, observed). The Prime Minister would not send laudative greetings to an "extremist" institute in any case. Mrandsl (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, the "undue weight" is the result of lack of information regarding other aspects. The solution would be for you to provide additional information from published sources, your assurances are not good enough, I am afraid. For the neutrality issue, as critical information can never be neutral. As this information is properly sourced, you would have show they can not be considered as reliable source. Here again, your personal opinion is not relevant. So, please stop deleting sourced information and provide additional information for the claims you make. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: To illustrate my point above, see here about problems of weight and balance in short articles like this one. And if you could specify why Anton Maegerle, Daniel Hörsch, Andreas Angerstorfer, Annemarie Dengg, Bernd Wagner, and Florian Ritter are not reliable sources. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bavarian Verfassungsschutzbericht is available as here[1]. As you can see, the institute is, unlike the party Die Linke and affiliated institutions, not regarded by the authorities as extremist (it's not mentioned at all). Your continued attempts to portray the fact that Horst Seehofer sent a laudative greeting as a negative accusation is vandalism and will be reverted as such. Here again, your personal opinion of an institute or of Horst Seehofer is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox (WP:NOT). The only relevant source in this regard if the official Verfassungsschutzbericht that is published by the Ministry of the Interior. Mrandsl (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Maegerle: Member of the SPD left wing and self-identifies with the extremist Antifa. The cited article is published in a book edited by an SPD politician.
Andreas Angerstorfer and Annemarie Dengg: Affiliated with the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, an SPD organisation
Florian Ritter: Unknown person
Bernd Wagner: Former high-ranking communist official from East Germany ("Im Zentralen Kriminalamt der DDR war er Leiter der Abteilung Extremismus", ironicly, as an official of a criminal extremist regime taking part in political repression) and hardly a neutral source
Daniel Hörsch: Largely unknown person, his article is published in a book edited by an SPD politician

I'm sure there is a lot more to say about these people. Bottom line is that you are using political publications by SPD members (mostly from the left-wing of the SPD) or people with a communist past attacking an organisation on the other side of the political spectrum to flood the article with 80 % negative material/political propaganda from political opponents of the institute. The only credible, neutral and relevant source as far as this question is concerned is the Verfassungsschutzbericht published by the government, which is very thorough and cover all expressions of political extremism in Bavaria. You are also using the article as a soapbox to attack the Prime Minister of Bavaria for sending a laudative greeting to the institute. Mrandsl (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison: If more than 80 % of the article on Die Linke or an organisation affiliated with that party was made up by the Verfassungsschutz view of that party/organisation, I'm sure some people would protest. Although the Verfassungsschutzbericht is a lot more credible and neutral source than your SPD publications. Mrandsl (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only source you quoted so far is irrelevant because it contains no information at all on the topic. Interestingly you deleted the only source supporting the alleged support of the Bavarian government. You make no attempt at finding alternative wording, instead you disqualify all sources, except a right-wing newspaper. Following your logic, only right-wing extremist sources would be allowed to be quoted in articles about right-wing extremism. This is not WP:NPOV, that's WP:Censorship. --Dodo19 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, let me answer the above mentioned request for comment. I'm totally unfamiliar with the topic, and with the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, I've only read the article in its current and its former version, but I'm an experienced editor. I'd suggest not getting too personal between you, and avoiding any accusations of being leftist or right-wing. It's just not helpful. Now, if we managed to have an article about such controversial a man as Rush Limbaugh, then we should be able to solve this problem. Why don't you first find out what common facts you agree on, e. g. names, persons, sources etc.? I guess there will be some facts you both can agree on. This could be the basis for a nice little article. And the first step to avoiding any future edit-warring. Now let's talk about the critical points. If the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt is being perceived by someone as, say, being politically biased, then we may mention that in a section reflecting that. Of course we shouldn't exaggerate. I understand there are strict anti-nazi-laws in Germany and other European countries, some of them even partially restricting the freedom of speech (which is understandable, given Europe's experience with totalitarian regimes). So it's clear that the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt would be illegal if it really was some sort of neo-nazi organization. But it may be an institution leaning to the political right or even far right (just an assumption). This could also be expressed in the section, but in a cool way, as a pure matter of fact. Of course these claims must be supported by credible, serious sources. If the source itself could be seen as biased, for example by affiliation to a political party or think tank, then either avoid the source or mention that affiliation. In the end, the reader should be able to study the article and come to his or her own conclusions. Let the article speak for itself. In case one of you has difficulties accepting even tiny portions of the article, please try to find a solution by debating it, but always keeping away from edit-warring. I hope to have been of help! Please note that I'm only answering to the request for comment, and I will not take part or sides in the future course of this debate. Good luck and happy editing, --Catgut (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, I agree that is a sensible solution to many of the problems with this article. In Germany, even organisations that are not extremist enough to get banned, or only "suspected" of extremist tendencies or of cooperating with extremists in any way, are "observed" (for instance, the political party Die Linke, is observed by the authorities for this reason). As this institute is not under any kind of observation, the government's position is fairly clear. It could of course be briefly mentioned that left-wing organisations are critical of the institute and perceives it to be "right-wing". Biased sources should not be used as "neutral" sources without any indication of the fact that they are biased. The problem with this article was that it was flooded with negative material, exclusively based on biased, left-wing sources that were presented as neutral sources. Mrandsl (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]